Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Van Oord ACZ Marine Contractors BV (Madras High Court)
Appeal Number : W.A. Nos. 979 of 2018 and 2811 of 2021
Date of Judgement/Order : 30/06/2022
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

CCIT Vs Van Oord ACZ Marine Contractors BV (Madras High Court)

HC held that In the present case, the appellant had the right to apply for waiver of the interest charged under Section 234A or Section 234B, or Section 234C as per the notification F.no 400/234/95-IT(B), dated 23-05-1996 by invoking clause 2 (e) which empowered an assessee to apply for waiver, when the return could not be filed for “unavoidable reasons”, when the application was filed in 2003. Once the applicant was found eligible to apply on the date of application, his application cannot be thrown out as not maintainable because of a subsequent notification. It is one thing to say that the relief is discretionary and another to state that the application is not maintainable. The subsequent notification will not affect the consideration of the applications pending on merit. Such an interpretation would not be against the law laid down by the Apex Court, but would also be arbitrary. Therefore, the contention of the revenue on this ground is rejected. Insofar as the merit is concerned, we have already seen that the legal issue as to chargeability till the financial year 2012-13 has been decided in favour of the assessee in Mitsubishi case (supra). Therefore, we find no ground to interfere with the findings of the Learned Judge by relying upon the Judgment in Chennai Port Trust case, to exclude the period till the decision was taken by AAR. In view of the same, the appeal in W.A No.979/2018 is also rejected.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Both these appeals are filed by the appellants / Revenue, assailing the separate orders dated 03.01.2018 and 27.11.2017 passed by the learned Judge in the respective writ petitions viz., WP.Nos.14165 of 2009 and 18472 of 2009.

2. As the issues arise for consideration in both the appeals are common, they were taken up for hearing together and disposed of by this common judgment.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
August 2024
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031